Skip to main content

Il-Panama blacklisted, bil-paroli iżda mhux bil-fatti



Nhar it-Tlieta li għaddew, il-Ministri tal-Finanzi tal-Unjoni Ewropea iddeċidew li jdaħħlu fi blacklist 17-il pajjiż li mhux jikkoperaw mal-miżuri li qed jittieħdu biex jitnaqqsu l-abbużi mit-taxxa u l-ħasil ta’ flus. Apparti din il-lista, ħarġu lista ta’ 47 pajjiż li qed jagħmlu riformi biex jimxu ‘l quddiem imma għadhom m’humiex mija fil-mija konformi mal-miżuri li l-Ewropa tistenna biex jiġu missielta dawn l-abbużi. L-aħbar kienet imħabbar fuq il-ġurnali internazzjonali ewlenin, fosthom il-Financial Times (https://www.ft.com/content/c4d721dc-d9cf-11e7-a039-c64b1c09b482) u l-Politico (https://www.politico.eu/article/eu-places-17-countries-on-tax-haven-blacklist-but-none-of-its-own/).

Interessanti wieħed jinnota li din id-deċiżjoni, peress li hija waħda marbuta mal-finanzi, ittieħdet b’mod unanimu. Dan ifisser li anke’ Malta qablet ma’ din id-deċiżjoni.

Aktar interessanti minn hekk huwa l-fatt li din il-lista tinkludi l-Panama. Iva, sew qed taqra. Malta din il-ġimgħa qablet li l-Panama mhix qed tikkopera fil-ġlieda kontra l-evażjoni tat-taxxa u l-ħasil tal-flus, u allura għandha tiġi blacklisted.

X’ironija hux? Proprju Ministru ta’ dan il-Gvern, ic-Chief-of-Staff tal-Prim Ministru, u allegatament il-mara tal-Prim Ministru stess, huma sidien ta’ kumpaniji reġistrati l-Panama, liema kumpaniji ma ġewx reġistrati għal fini ta’ taxxa, u liema kumpaniji huma meqjusa minn rapporti tal-FIAU li intużaw għal ħasil ta’ flus kbar, partikolarment ta’ tixħim ġej mill-proġetti marbuta mal-enerġija. Dawn il-kumpaniji s’issa ma nafux ġewx likwidati jew għadhomx qed jintużaw.

Ta’ min infakkru li anke’ f’dak iż-żmien stess li dawn il-kumpaniji kienu qed jinfetħu, fil-lista tal-MFSA ta’ Malta stess il-Panama kienet meqjusa pajjiż li kumpaniji tas-servizz finanzjarju ma kellhomx jużaw. U dan fl-istess ħin li membri stess tal-Gvern kienu qed jagħmlu hekk.

Imbagħad esponenti tal-Gvern jeħduha bi kbira għax ikun hawn min jgħid li dan mhux pajjiż normali u li m’hawnx saltna tad-dritt. Mhux bilfors? Jekk il-liġi, anke’ hawn, ma tapplikax l-istess għal kulħadd?

Sadattant, pajjiżi barranin reġgħu ħatfu dan iċ-ċans biex jattakkaw il-qafas ta’ tassazzjoni li nħadmu f’pajjiżna. Infatti jekk tara dawn l-artikli, issib diversi kummenti ta’ pajjiżi oħra, u anke’ ta’ NGO internazzjonali bħal Oxfam, li jgħidu li huwa ħażin li din il-lista ma tinkludix pajjiżi tal-Unjoni Ewropea stess, għax skont huma pajjiżi bħall-Irlanda, il-Lussemburgu, l-Olanda u Malta, għandhom jiġu inklużi għax huma wkoll qed jgħinu fl-evażjoni tat-taxxa.

Għalkemm bħala pajjiż dejjem iddefendejna l-pożizzjoni komuni tagħna fuq l-qafas ta’ tassazzjoni tagħna, l-attakki li qed jiġu lejn pajjiżna riċentament huma biss frott ħaġa waħda: l-għemil tal-Gvern.

Għal snin iddefendejna lilna nfusna, għal snin bnejna reputazzjoni b’saħħitha, tant li ħafna kienu dawk li bdew ifittxu lil Malta bħala ġurisdizzjoni ta’ kwalità, ta’ fama tajba, u ta’ min jista’ joqgħod fuqha.

Iżda malli d-dinja rat kif membri tal-Gvern stess jużaw is-servizzi finanzjarji tagħna biex jiftħu kumpaniji f’postijiet bħal Panama, jeqirdu awtoritajiet bħall-FIAU u l-Korp tal-Pulizija biex ma jitteħdux passi kontriehom, jinkixfu kif daħlu flus minn commissions u kickbacks illegali u kif ħaslu dawn il-flus, u ma jiġri xejn, ġraw żewġ affarijiet.

L-ewwelnett min hu serju ma baqagħx jafdana. U t-tieni, min kien jgħir għalina sab ix-xoqqa f’moxxtha biex jattakkana.

Din hija l-irresponsabbilità gravi ta’ dan il-Gvern. Li għal fini tal-interessi finanzjarji u personali ta’ uħud mill-membri tiegħu, qed jipperikola settur sħiħ, settur li illum jikkonstitwixxi aktar minn 12% tal-Prodott Gross Domestiku tagħna.

U jiġri dan kollu, u l-Prim Ministru jibqa’ mhux interessat biex tittieħed azzjoni. Jibqa’ intenzjonat li jiddefendi l-istatus quo u jiġġieled biex ma jsirux ir-riformi li hemm bżonn.

Ħasra tassew, għax pajjiżna jixraqlu aħjar.




Dan l-artiklu deher fil-Mument tal-Ħadd 10 ta' Diċembru 2017.

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

Who's the real monster?

I usually hate comparisons, but some very different reactions from the 'great unthinking' rabble do merit some analysis. In May this year, the notorious dog Star was found buried alive . A prima facie , this looked liked the most horrific case of animal cruelty, and is still considered so by some. The perpetrator was described by the sensitive and caring animal-lovers as a villain, a heartless monster, deserving of death, stoning, or even to be 'buried alive in the same manner'. But what did Mr. Vella actually do, according to the testimony heard in Court? Star was sick. It was shedding fur, and quite old already, and its owner did not afford the treatment. In trying to save some money from paying for the dog to be put to sleep and killed properly by vets, she gave it to Mr. Vella to have it killed himself. Nothing much to make people angry till now. Mercy-killing of very sick and suffering animals is widely done and usually acceptable. You may

Shema Yisrael, the cries of the Palestinian people

You live a peaceful life in a modest home. You've never bothered anyone and you've never caused trouble. Out of the blues, a group of people claim that they should live in your house. Why? Because they have been persecuted in a war, and they claim that some 5,000 years ago, their God had told them your home was their promised land. Somehow, the whole community agrees with their wishes, and asks you to grant them your spare-bedroom. You oblige. After a few months, they take the whole top-floor. In a few year's time, they take over your kitchen. After a few more years, they own your house and keep you and your family locked in the bathroom. They don't even allow you to get out, while they strip-search you the few times they do. Even if it's a medical emergency. Sometimes not even medical personnel and ambulances are allowed to see to your needs while your children die in your hands. Desperation starts hitting you. Life seems to offer no hopes. In moments

Why I am dropping out of the Anti-ACTA protest

Like many avid internet users, I have followed with interest the debate about ACTA (Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement). After reading numerous articles, watched sensational videos, and discussed ad nauseam with friends, I have realized that what I have come across is a campaign hi-jacked by lies, myths and misconceptions as to rival Malta's misinformed divorce referendum campaign. I have to say that the videos on Youtube   got me worried. I quickly signed the petition, joined the Anti-ACTA groups, and prepared myself for a full-blown fight against the big-governments who want to intrude on our privacy and freedom of expression. Like our MEP Edward Scicluna invited us to do in the University debate last Wednesday, I did not try to understand the details of ACTA but rather saw who the players behind it were. But as usual, my logical instincts took over, and his call to not try to understand ACTA actually pushed me to read the text. And here's what I now know: ACTA is